About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
the deficits, although george w. bush never balanced a budget in eight years but of course these were freedom deficits. of a the credit card with no limit presidency of mr. bush, the credit card bill has arrived in your mailbox. it's called austerity. last decade, we had two wars off the books while cutting taxes for the wealthy. there are ways to fix our deficit, but don't hurt the poor and middle class a carbon tax creating capital gains and income. apparently we don't really hate
class. at least we have a budget now and at least democrats now can show that deficit reduction can be done responsible. responsibly. >> the lack of a bunt has been an effective talking point for republicans. why do you think they haven't reached an agreement? >> because they're democrats. they have a hard time reaching an agreement about anything. that's why they're democrats. the progressive caucus shows that it is possible to reduce the budget deficit by taking even more away from big corporations reducing corporate welfare to an even larger extent reigning in tax loopholes, and so-called tax expenditures. the democratic budget and senate budget is a very good place to begin. i think the progressive caucus's budget is much better. >> analysts are saying this budget is to the left of obama. many on the left would say we should have expected that. does this give the president the opportunity to bring people together and get some sort of grand bargain by throwing things less liked under the bus. >> there is not going to be a grand bargain. the right wing controls the republican part
, that's the estimate of what the possible deficits of these programs might be projected out to the infinite future. it's known as the infinite horizon projection. it doesn't tell us anything about the current fiscal status of these programs. it's just designed to create a big scary number as it does. 60 trillion-dollar, sometimes you hear the number 200 trillion-dollar. that's nonsense. real actuaries hate this sort of number because they say it's only there to basically mislead the public, and to scare people into making changes in these programs that they don't need, and that aren't necessary. >> john: indeed. i know we're short on time but i want to get to your fourth lie which i thought was one we hear all the time that you're paying way too much for your benefits or maybe you're paying too little? >> yes this is an in the misrepresentation. they are social programs. some putting more in to them will get more out of them. some won't get much out of them, what they paid in taxes. what makes the programs valuable at the middle of your career or midpoint of your career you
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)